Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Typed array declarations

--000000000000a19f6706571dd0ac
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

pon., 20 lip 2026 o 13:48 Wendell Adriel <[email protected]>
napisa=C5=82(a):

> Hey Micha=C5=82,
>
> This raises a broader architectural question:
>
>
>> Should Level 3 typed arrays rely on function-specific guards for these
>> APIs, or should internal APIs gradually move towards a model where the
>> result is built in a temporary zval and only assigned through a single
>> typed assignment after construction?
>
>
>> That approach would naturally preserve atomicity and would work not only
>> for list, but also for future typed arrays.
>
>
>> I'm not claiming this makes Level 3 impossible. Quite the opposite - I
>> think it highlights an implementation issue that any persistent refineme=
nt
>> over mutable arrays will eventually have to solve, regardless of whether
>> the refinement is list, array<T>, or something else.
>
>
>> I'd be interested to hear whether this has already been considered durin=
g
>> the design of Level 3, or whether this class of internal APIs simply has=
n't
>> been explored yet.
>
>
> This is very interesting.
> I thought about it, but didn't dive too much into it.
>
> However, from some checks I've done myself, when you say: "or should
> internal APIs gradually move towards a model where the result is built in=
 a
> temporary zval and only assigned through a single typed assignment after
> construction?"
> That going into this direction would be very beneficial, however, I think
> this would imply touching a lot of things that can have a broader impact.
> If this is something that people would agree to follow, I think it would
> be great.
>
> I've been implementing a prototype of persistent list-typed properties
>> (where list is a structural refinement of array, i.e. array_is_list() mu=
st
>> always hold),
>
> BTW, on this, is this already an RFC, or is the implementation somewhere
> I can take a look at?
>

I actually moved away from the direction I originally suggested (adding
element constraints to arrays). I'm now exploring a separate approach based
on dedicated immutable value types, but it's still too early to discuss as
a concrete proposal. I'd rather wait until the design has stabilized.

Cheers,
Micha=C5=82 Marcin Brzuchalski

--000000000000a19f6706571dd0ac
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote g=
mail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">pon., 20 lip 20=
26 o 13:48=C2=A0Wendell Adriel &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:wendelladriel.ti@gmail=
.com">[email protected]</a>&gt; napisa=C5=82(a):<br></div><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px=
 solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"=
><div><div style=3D"font-size:small"><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-s=
erif;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Hey=C2=A0<span style=3D"font-family:Arial,Helvetica,=
sans-serif;background-color:transparent;color:rgb(34,34,34)">Micha=C5=82,</=
span></div><span><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0=
)"><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;=
border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">This raises a broa=
der architectural question:</blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);pad=
ding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-lef=
t:1ex">Should Level 3 typed arrays rely on function-specific guards for the=
se APIs, or should internal APIs gradually move towards a model where the r=
esult is built in a temporary zval and only assigned through a single typed=
 assignment after construction?</blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204)=
;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex">That approach would naturally preserve atomicity and would work =
not only for list, but also for future typed arrays.</blockquote><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px s=
olid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I&#39;m not claiming this makes Level 3 im=
possible. Quite the opposite - I think it highlights an implementation issu=
e that any persistent refinement over mutable arrays will eventually have t=
o solve, regardless of whether the refinement is list, array&lt;T&gt;, or s=
omething else.</blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex=
"><br></blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0p=
x 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I&#39;=
d be interested to hear whether this has already been considered during the=
 design of Level 3, or whether this class of internal APIs simply hasn&#39;=
t been explored yet.=C2=A0</blockquote></div></span></div></div><div><br></=
div><div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:r=
gb(0,0,0)">This is very interesting.</div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,s=
ans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">I thought about it, but didn&#3=
9;t dive too much into it.</div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;=
font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial=
,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">However, from some checks I&#=
39;ve done myself, when you say: &quot;<span style=3D"font-family:Arial,Hel=
vetica,sans-serif;background-color:transparent;color:rgb(34,34,34)">or shou=
ld internal APIs gradually move towards a model where the result is built i=
n a temporary zval and only assigned through a single typed assignment afte=
r construction?&quot;</span></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-seri=
f;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial,s=
ans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">That going into this direction =
would be very beneficial, however, I think this would imply touching a lot =
of things that can have a broader impact.</div><div style=3D"font-family:ar=
ial,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">If this is something that =
people would agree to follow, I think it would be great.</div><br></div><di=
v><blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(2=
04,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">I&#39;ve been implement=
ing a prototype of persistent list-typed properties (where list is a struct=
ural refinement of array, i.e. array_is_list() must always hold),<span clas=
s=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;c=
olor:rgb(0,0,0)"></span></blockquote><div style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-s=
erif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></div><div style=3D"font-family:aria=
l,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style=3D"border-style:=
none;background:none">BTW, on this</span>, is this already an RFC, or is th=
e implementation somewhere I can take a look at?</div></div></div></div></b=
lockquote><div><br></div><div>I actually moved away from the direction I or=
iginally suggested (adding element constraints to arrays). I&#39;m now expl=
oring a separate approach based on dedicated immutable value types, but it&=
#39;s still too early to discuss as a concrete proposal. I&#39;d rather wai=
t until the design has stabilized.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><d=
iv>Micha=C5=82 Marcin Brzuchalski</div></div></div>

--000000000000a19f6706571dd0ac--